Nicholas Kossodo Weaver v Deborah Smith
[2023] EWHC 1200 (Ch)
Burras Otley Limited v Helen Johnson & Ors
3 August 2023
[2023] EWHC 2022 (Ch)
High Court
A fight over who can use a road on some old land! A judge looked at old papers to see who had the right to use the road. He decided that one group got the right (even though the road wasn't built), while the other group didn't. He used rules about how to read old documents and what is fair to make the decision.
Key Facts
- •Appeal and cross-appeal against an order concerning rights of way over development land in Otley.
- •Disputes concern interpretation of 1936 and 1937 conveyances.
- •Land owned by Burras Otley Ltd (Claimant) and Defendants (owners of three houses).
- •Conveyances involved sale of land by executors/trustees to a builder, Mr. Moon.
- •Rights of way were granted and reserved in the conveyances, contingent on the construction of a planned 'New Road'.
- •The 'New Road' was never built.
- •A later conveyance (1946) is relevant to the appurtenant rights.
- •The Judge found that no effective rights of way were reserved in the 1936 conveyance but rights were reserved in the 1937 conveyance benefiting parts of the Claimant's land.
- •The dispute centers on whether the reserved rights were immediately effective or contingent on the construction of the New Road.
Legal Principles
Rule against perpetuities
Common Law
Validity principle in contract interpretation
Egon Zehnder Ltd v Tillman [2020] AC 154
Interpretation of commercial contracts
Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] 1 WLR 2900; Arnold v Britton [2015] AC 1619; Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd [2017] AC 1173; EMFC Loan Syndications LLP v The Resort Group plc [2021] EWCA Civ 844
Effect of s.62(1) Law of Property Act 1925
Law of Property Act 1925, s.62(1) and (4)
Cherry Tree Investments Ltd v Landmain Ltd [2013] Ch 305 principle regarding context in interpreting registered documents
Cherry Tree Investments Ltd v Landmain Ltd [2013] Ch 305
Outcomes
Claimant's appeal regarding the 1936 Conveyance dismissed.
The court found only one realistic interpretation of the conveyance: that the reserved right was contingent on the future construction of roads, mirroring the rights granted to the purchaser.
Defendants' appeal regarding the 1937 Conveyance dismissed.
The court found two realistic interpretations of the conveyance. Applying the validity principle, the court preferred the interpretation that upheld the reserved right as immediately effective over the site of the proposed New Road.
Defendants' appeal regarding the effect of the 1946 Conveyance dismissed.
The court found insufficient evidence to show a contrary intention in the 1946 conveyance to exclude the operation of s.62(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925. The express grant of future rights in the 1946 conveyance did not override existing rights.
Similar Cases
Mohammed Sagier v Harbans Kaur
[2024] UKUT 217 (LC)
Gary David Harry Hambling & Anor v Garry Lawrence Wakerly & Anor
[2023] EWHC 343 (Ch)
Anthony Charles Clapham & Ors v Dee Narga
[2023] EWHC 3337 (Ch)
Charles Edward Porter and another v Robert Stokes (Personal Representative of the Estate of Walter Edward Stokes, deceased) (Trinidad and Tobago)
[2023] UKPC 11